Though I appreciated the link, if only because it made
me see one of
the weirdest things about the current notability guidelines. By
relying on multiple independent sources, they essentially establish a
higher verifiability threshold for article topics than article
content. In other words, nothing whatsoever prevents inclusion of
this ski field on a list of NZ ski fields - that's verifiable
information. But something now has to be super-verifiable to be an
article topic.
What is gained by creating this second class of verifiability? Why do
article topics need to be super-verified? Or, more specifically, why
is normal, garden-variety verifiability not good enough for article
topics? And if it's not good enough for article topics, why is it
good enough for your garden variety information?
Regardless of what you call it, it is perfectly obvious that the
threshold for including something in an article should be lower than
the threshold for giving something its own article. The alternative
would result in Wikipedia being a website containing billions is
interlinked stubs with nothing else since as soon as anything was
deemed worthy of getting added to an article it would be split of into
its own article.